In their excellent Presbyterian Outlook article “Compelled to Respond” (June 14, 2018) authors Jim Allison and Abby Mohaupt discuss the response of the Presbyterian Church (USA) to the issue of climate change. https://pres-outlook.org/2018/06/compelled-to-respond-the-223rd-general-assembly-and-climate-change/. These two writers disagree on the appropriateness of divestiture in fossil fuels as a faithful response to climate change – Allison retired from ConocoPhillips after 33 years with that oil company and Mohaupt is a minister member of San Francisco Presbytery and the moderator of Fossil Free PCUSA.

The authors agree however, that we are compelled as faithful Christians to engage in social justice, and in their approach to climate change they give us a fine example of how we in the church might discuss and work together across lines of disagreement on this and other social justice issues. They begin with a clear affirmation of our denomination’s agreement that climate change exists and requires a response from us as faithful members:

“As a denomination, the PC(USA) officially believes in the reality of climate change — that is, our policies and statements reflect a confidence in the overwhelming majority of scientists who say that the climate is changing and that humans are responsible for that change … (S)ince 1990 when the “Restoring creation: For ecology and justice” report was released, the PC(USA) has had clear denomination-wide theological statements on caring for creation. We already do so much as a denomination — and the reality and urgency of climate require that we do more. That is, the specter of climate change continues to grow worse and so we must add to our response. Our theological tradition compels us to engage in responding to climate change.”

Our government recently released a report on climate change that spoke clearly to its existence and to the urgency of responding, the National Climate Assessment. The co-author of that report is Katharine Hayhoe, atmospheric scientist and professor at Texas Tech University. For some of us at Guilford Park Hayhoe may be remembered as the climate scientist from the Lunch and Learn video we discussed a couple years ago, “Years of Living Dangerously: Preacher’s Daughter.” She is a practicing evangelical Christian and daughter of missionaries as well as a respected scientist and speaker. And she is a gifted speaker and writer, making climate science and issues understandable to lay persons. Many of her presentations, including a TED Talk, are available online. Despite her excellent credentials and those of others who worked on this latest assessment, the report was largely ignored or dismissed by some public figures.

Dr. Hayhoe recently responded via Twitter to several of the myths and dismissive comments about the Climate Assessment’s conclusions. As members of a church body that affirms both the existence of climate change and the necessity of faithful Christian response, you might be interested in her responses from November 27, 2018.

The Fourth US National Climate Assessment was released on Friday. Since then, a number of politicians + pundits have made statements about it that are not accurate. As an author, I'm here to set the record straight. Here we go!

First, (someone) said the report was based on the “most extreme” scenario. No: the report considered a very broad range of scenarios, from one where carbon emissions go negative to one where they continue to grow. Source: https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/2/

Moreover, the scenarios chapter in Vol 1 discussed the scenarios in detail, and it concludes that “the observed increase in global carbon emissions over the past 15–20 years has been consistent with higher scenarios (very high confidence).” Throughout the regional and sectoral chapter, the report makes every effort to discuss possible outcomes of multiple scenarios

Then, (someone) claimed us authors were “driven by money”. After I picked myself up off the floor laughing, since we received $0 for writing the report, I invited him to watch this entertaining Global Weirding episode. I don’t think he did; but you should!

Next, (someone) claimed that the report was “nothing more than a rehash of age-old 10- to 20-year assumptions made by scientists that get paid to further the politics of global warming.” In fact, the report includes the latest literature right up to the cut-off date...including the latest attribution studies for (Hurricane) Harvey that quantify how human influence made the storm ~3x more likely and increased its rainfall “by at least 15% with a best estimate of 38%”. That’s pretty recent!

Finally, (someone) then said that he “didn’t believe” the report. But climate science isn’t a religion: it’s real, whether we believe in it or not. If our decisions are not based in reality, we are the ones who will suffer the consequences.

When it comes to a changing climate, the bottom line is this: It’s real. It’s us. Scientists agree. The impacts are already here and now. But by acting now we can still avoid the most serious and even dangerous impacts. Our future is in our hands.

Here at Guilford Park the Justice and Peacemaking Committee has led us to become a PC (USA) certified EarthCare Congregation, and just this year to put together a group to more closely work on our mission of environmental stewardship and environmental justice – the “Stewards of Creation.” Katharine Hayhoe states that the most pernicious and dangerous myth surrounding climate science is not that it is not real, but that “global warming does not matter to me.” https://grist.org/article/1656-pages-too-long-climate-report-coauthor-katharine-hayhoe-has-3-takeaways/. More and more Americans are discovering that climate change involves more than disappearing polar bears; it does indeed affect them personally.

Hayhoe is an excellent source of both information and faithful response and we urge you to seek out her other presentations and writings available online. While we as a committee agree with our denominational stance, we are aware there are other perspectives. Hayhoe would likely agree with the writers of the above-referenced

Presbyterian Outlook piece: “Our tradition says that we should greet these divergent views with “mutual forbearance”; in practice, our debates too often seem driven by scorched earth policies, and an outcome of separation seems preferred over forbearance.” Hayhoe strives to connect with people over what we can agree on, particularly the Christian value of stewardship of creation. We think that is a wise and faithful response.

We will continue to ponder our response as a congregation to these issues. Whatever your view, if you would like to be involved or help us with further conversation, contact either Keith Harrington or Steve Drew.